Spinonymous Sources: Wash. Post quoted "senior administration official" on White House's "comfort" with Libby decision
In a July 3 Washington Post article on President Bush's decision to commute former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison sentence, staff writer Michael Abramowitz reported that a "senior administration official ... said there is 'comfort' at the White House that the decision will not hurt [Bush] politically despite the Democratic outcry." According to Abramowitz, his source "spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about the president's thinking." Abramowitz offered no indication as to why his source deserved anonymity to assert the White House's "comfort" with the decision.
Moreover, while the article reported that "Democrats portrayed the decision as an example of Bush acting above the law and not holding members of his administration accountable for misdeeds," it quoted only Republicans and conservatives reacting to Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. Abramowitz quoted former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol praising the commutation, as well as GOP lobbyist Vin Weber and an anonymous "Washington conservative who is close to Libby" criticizing Bush for not pardoning Libby. The article did not contain a single quote from a Democrat, progressive, or anybody who opposed pardoning Libby or commuting his sentence.
In addition, the article quoted Simpson without noting that he is a member of the Libby Legal Defense Trust's "Advisory Committee." According to a June 25 Associated Press article, the trust was formed with the goal of "rais[ing] more than $5 million to help finance" Libby's legal defense.
Media Matters for America has documented several instances (here, here, and here) in which the Post has allowed Bush administration officials to praise the president or attack his critics behind the shield of anonymity.
From the July 3 Washington Post:
One senior administration official said Bush quickly made his decision yesterday after hearing that the U.S. Court of Appeals had refused to keep Libby out of prison while his appeal ran its course. This source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about the president's thinking, said there is "comfort" at the White House that the decision will not hurt him politically despite the Democratic outcry.
Here's the man of his word Bush that the Conservatives are gushing over
''If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if that person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of," Bush said at a campaign stop in Chicago in October 2003
Whoops two years later Bush changes the bar
''If someone committed a crime, they will no longer be in my administration," Bush said.
Whoops Bush changes the bar again
rap artist Kimberly Denise "Lil' Kim" Jones spent 10 months in prison for lying to a grand jury
Stewart served five months in federal prison for four counts of obstructing justice and lying to investigators.
Libby zero days in jail because it is to excessive.
Now what's wrong with this picture.
Jones and Stewart doesn't even work for government didn't use government information for partisan political payback and the Conservativess wail and weep for poor poor Libby who killed 4000 United States Soliders, maimed 20,000 of them, killed 600,000 innocent Iraqis, obstructed justice and comitted perjury. Poor Poor Libby.
Judith Miller are you having an orgasms over this?
Okay, why wouldn't the White House be "comfortable with the decision?" They made the decision!! What am I missing? Not exactly earthshattering stuff.
I think you are almost there, bruce. The question is why someone would be granted anonymity to say something like that? Anonymity used to be granted only in special situations to protect the person interviewed from retribution from his employer.
It is puzzling how the press keeps granting members of this administration anonymity to spread what looks like pro administration talking points and propaganda.
If the administration wants to spread their propaganda, that is fine. They just need to go on the record and stop being wussies about it.
BRUCE;
Yes, it's clear the White House is "comfortable" with obstruction of justice, perjury, and criminal behavior being ignored if it's "a friend". It's also clear that this White House has no use for our jury system, our courts, sentencing of convicted criminals, or the Constitution.
The question is, why do YOU feel this way? Is expecting adherence to the LAW so wildly abhorent to the Rightwing? Why would it be that you would believe our public servants to be above the law? Do you PREFER corrupt governance?
Tex, I'm not a big fan of pardons in general, but our system allows for it and to my knowledge all Presidents have used it so your tirade could just as easily be used against any administration ever assembled. Including your heroes before this one...
This, even while the justice dept is pushing for harsher sentences for the average citizen.
You might consider the overall crime and put it into perspective...Bush/Cheney/Co smear campaign, all including Libby willing to compromise national security to enact revenge. The justification for their invasion could not be questioned, therefore their political calculus to get back at Wilson and his wife.
You can talk in circles all day about pardons. Let's look at the crimes and how the crime affected the country and the world.
>>"Abramowitz offered no indication as to why his source deserved anonymity to assert the White House's "comfort" with the decision."<<
Indeed. Why the anonymity? Why does the Post quote ONLY Republicans and conservatives? Why not a single word from anyone who opposes this commutation?
DAVE:
Because it was a "puff piece", designed to comfort the people, to portray Democratic reaction as "hysterical" and "without basis", and to let America know that there is nothing at all to be concerned about here, it's all just routine.
To be fair, the GOPer was kept anonymous, but so was the Democrat who provided the quotes about how BAD this action was. Not even a mention of their being kept anonymous, the Dem "opinion" was just put out there as if made up by the "reporter".
Why would the decision hurt Bush? He already has the second lowest approval rating of any president in the history of the country. When only 26% of the country think you are a fool why not go for broke.
Just wait until the day after the election in November 2008. The pardons will flow like a river. The only question is how will Bush get himself off the hook. Will he flee to some country that does not have an extradition treaty or will he resign and have Cheney pardon him?
The Libby commutation (and the pardon which will certainly come later) would not be as bad if Bush did not have such a history of denying pardons and commutations in worthy cases as governor. Bush has a history of joking about executing people in Texas. Killing another person is never a joke whether done illegally or legally.
I was thinking of that irony earlier today. A president who presided over a huge amount of executions as a governor somehow finds 30 months to be too harsh a punishment for an apparent traitor (whose Constitutionally prescribed punishment is execution BTW).
I think "Skater" was lucky to get 30 months compared to the execution he arguably deserved.
...and don't forget the irony of imprisoning people for many years because someone thought they *might* be a terrorist despite having never been convicted or even tried...and despite a military panel finding no evidence to support the charges.
Oh, Boy. If MY decision left Scooter with his taking the 5th option, I'D be comfortable with it, too.
Where was all the outrage from the left when their "GOD" Bill Clinton made over 140 pardons in his last hours in office? One of those was for a fugitive named Marc Rich who fled the country to avoid prosecution, but since it was Clinton it's okay. You whining liberals are serious nutbags.
Hey GOPWANTSAMERICANSDEAD
I was outraged. So was the Nation magazine. You seem to think, and I use that term generously that Clinton was a lefty. No one I know was happy about the Rich pardon. Rich was NOT part of the Clinton administration and NOT convicted of anything concerning a Clinton administration scandal but it still stunk just not quite as bad as this.
There was considerable outrage at Clinton's pardons of Mark Rich and Roger Clinton at the time they happened. There was an outcry in the so-called "liberal media." The fact that you conveniently can't remember that doesn't mean it didn't occur. There was outrage voiced by me and most of the progressives I know. You've been drinking the Kool-Aid again.
Many of us who consider ourselves progressives do not think of Bill Clinton as a "god," although he was a hell of a lot better than the fascist thugs in this government. Yeah, those 8 years of peace and prosperity were just awful.
Anyway, try to stick to the issues and resist the tired old Republican gimmick of always whining, "B-b-b-but Clinton..." Don't you ever get sick of hearing yourself say that?
No.
The guy who for 8 years they whined about, investigated, berated, condemned, and ridiculed, is the guy they aspire to emulate, apparently.
Their envy is boundless, and when they bring up Clinton as a comparison, they're actually boasting that their guys have allegedly achieved his level of integrity. They never get tired of that.
Assuming the dubious premise you are pushing that the two situations are analogous, why were you so apparently upset back when Clinton issued his pardons, but not a peep of outrage regarding Bush's pardons from you now?
For every apparent hypocrisy, there seems to be an equal and opposite hypocrisy.
Bill Clinton Defends Pres. Bush's Pardon Of Libby.
- A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons... a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances...
The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be...
In some cases, I granted pardons because I felt the individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute... - Bill Clinton, New York Times, July 03
And Libby was treated unfairly? Give us a break, please.
Wesley,
can you provide a link to your post. I can provide a link to mine.
Former President Bill Clinton criticized President Bush on Tuesday for commuting the prison sentence of Lewis "Scooter"
"Yeah, but I think the facts were different," Bill Clinton said. "I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.
"It's wrong to out that CIA agent and wrong to try to cover it up," he added. "And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4942741.html
The game Wesley is playing is that he's equating Bush's actions to Clinton's. They are separate incidents. Whether Clinton really believed his pardons were the right thing to do or not has no bearing on whether Bush really believed his actions were appropriate, much less whether they truly are.
A more respectable, honest poster could make the argument that Clinton was wrong to give out certain pardons. That's a valid debate. What one can't honestly do is use that quote to say that Bush did the right thing, because it simply has no bearing on it whatsoever.
Wesley knows this, of course. He just doesn't have any ammunition when his team is against the wall, so is often reduced to disingenuous tactics and petty jackassery.
I plainly provided the source...go to the NYTimes and read it for yourself.
- "Yeah, but I think the facts were different...I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted... they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle. - Clinton
Roger Clinton?
Inventing headlines to suit your right-wing agenda, or are you just plain confused?
A 7/4 NY Times headline reads, "Bill Clinton Criticizes Bush on Libby Move", not "Bill Clinton Defends Pres. Bush's Pardon Of Libby" as you stated above.
A search of the past 7 days on NYT reveals no articles that have "Bill Clinton Defends..." in them.
There is a 7/3 NY Times article that says "ROMNEY Defends Bush decision on Libby" however.
Actually what Wesley is doing is cherry picking the quote, here is the article
NY Times
It was an article were Bill Clinton criticized Bush.
“It’s wrong to out that C.I.A. agent and wrong to try to cover it up,” Mr. Clinton added. “And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it.”
Wesley, read the title of the article if your confused.
I'm fully aware of the article and statements you have cited. It's typical clinton speak.
He clearly supported the legal precedent by Pres.Bush in commuting Libby's sentence...his criticism "about" the action is just another "I did not have sex with that woman" moment.
On his way out the door of the white house...he pardoned about 2 dozen drug offenders...and another dozen convicted of lying to the government.
If you want to argue that Pres.Bush pimped the justice system...then you must also argue that Clinton pimped the system.
However, the fact remains, that Clinton defended the legal right of Pres.Bush to commute Libby's sentence...by statute...perfectly legal and justified.
Who's suggesting in the very least that what Bush did wasn't legal? Clinton said it was "wrong", which seems quite straightforward. I may have misread something once, but any 8-year old understands the distinction between "wrong" and "illegal".
In other words, Clinton defended Bush against a charge that nobody is making...but criticizing Bush's actions. In your mind, you think that is "defending" Bush? I know you're smarter than that, please try to be more honest.
- The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be... I granted pardons because I felt the individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute - Bill Clinton
Clinton clearly states that Pres.Bush had every right and reason to commute the sentence of Libby...and his subsequent criticism is typical clintonesque blather...that would appeal to a partisan pedantic.
On misreading...when someone mistakes 17 inches for 17 feet...and then tries to frame an argument on that fact...it's more than a simple misread...it's ignorance of the subject matter.
In defending his own pardons...Clinton has articulated precedents that approve of and defend the fact that Pres. Bush had every legal right...and personal right...to handle the Libby situation as he deemed proper.
Again, because you seem incapable of comprehension, nobody is saying Bush didn't have the right, or that he can't claim he believes it to be the right thing to do. Nobody is arguing that. Clinton admitting he had that right is not "defending" Bush, because nobody is "attacking" Bush on those grounds. As far as reason, Clinton's expression of his reasons does not automatically mean that he believes Bush had reason in this particular case. Clinton expressly said that the outing and cover-up were wrong, which is a far, far cry from the title you posted as if it came from a news headline.
Explain to me how you believe you are refuting any of this, please. I'm genuinely curious what makes you think you have a valid point here.
When Clinton defended the pardon process and the actions of Pres.Bush he cited at least 3 reasons why Pres. Bush's actions were proper...take your pick:
1. A belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust.
2. Personal circumstances that warrant compassion.
3. Other unique circumstances.
Well King, this case is closed.
Clinton made those remarks in July 03, according to you, so he wasn't specifying his remarks to this case. So he in no way, shape or form implied that he believes that this action was appropriate. Bush can argue that he believes one or more things apply to Libby, but unless Clinton says so, then he's not defending Bush's reasoning. It's not as if he was asked about Libby and he said that, he was defending his own particular actions. His defense of his own rationale for his own actions has no bearing on his opinion of Bush's rationale for his actions.
There is no question Bush has the right to do it or the capability to rationalize it. The question is, does anyone outside of the hardcore Bush apologists believe he really did have good reason to do so? Apparently not.
Wrong yes he had every RIGHT but NOT every REASON.
SOLON:
If you have a driver's licence, you have EVERY RIGHT to get behind the wheel and drive somewhere.
If, however, you get behind the wheel drunk, run into a bunch of nuns crossing the street, run the red light, and ram into a parked police car ... then explaining to the officer that you HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE DRIVING will fall on deaf ... and probably angry ... ears.
Having the RIGHT to do something does not automatically make every exercise of that Right above reproach, correct by definition, or outside scrutiny to determine if the right has been criminally abused.
Bush criminally abused his RIGHT to throw out court verdicts ... he did it for purely PARTISAN POLITICAL reasons, and clearly to protect his own butt. These are NOT correct an proper uses of the RIGHT and POWER ... they are criminal abuses.
Here's another TRUE FACT: If Congress decides Bush ABUSED his power to commute or pardon, it rises to the level of an impeachable offense, Congress can impeach and remove Bush from office (with enough votes). Bush has his powers, but they are not absolute.
Exactly so. What isnt being talked about is this pardon was for wrongdoing of HIS administration. Doing HIS dirty work at the end of the day. Wilson exposed HIM for misleading on the Uranium from Niger claim and because there really wasnt any way to smear HIM they went after his wife with NO thought of the consequences for no other reason that pure political pique. Bush had the right to pardon him but it stinks.
TEX: Does it say somewhere that the President can pardon anyone except for....., please show me that if you can find it. I think your charge againt Bush of "criminal abuse" with regard to this action is total B.S.
I have found nothing on the internet restricting the Presidents ability to pardon anyone he damn well pleases. And any such future restrictions on Presidential powers to pardon anyone he damn well pleases would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Tex never said that he didn't have the right to do it. We all know, and this has been tossed back and forth on here, that the President can pardon/commute anyone's conviction/sentence. The Constitution gives him that right and power.
Does it make it correct though in this case? That is the discussion at hand. Not whether or not he could or could not commute Scooter's sentence, but whether or not he SHOULD have.
Tex specifically said "criminal abuse" which was what I responded to. Everything else I agree with.
"I may have misread something once, but any 8-year old understands the distinction between "wrong" and "illegal"."
An 8 year old maybe, but not the RW brigade. To them if something that one of theirs does is not illegal then it can't possibly be wrong. That is why they put so much effort into parsing the language and playing around with technicalities. They have no concepts of the spirit of anything, just the literal words as written. This attitude also shows in most of their judicial decisions, unless of course they need to do some contortions to assist the plutocrats.
Wesley, if you can't figure it out I'm sorry. Here look at it this way.
Clinton:
Does President Bush have the right to pardon Libby? Yes
Should he have pardoned Libby, due to his crimes? No
There is no double talk, or political backpedaling or anything else. Its clear cut, logical thought. A=1, B=2, so therefore A+B=3
Or do you feel its still Clinton's fault or Clinton is lying, or Clinton is just playing to the masses? If so; I'm really sorry that you're so partisan it clouds your ability to reason. Or is it that conservatives in power lie, cheat and play their little power games so much, you just assume everything any political figure says is a grab for power?
LOL. You are calling someone partisan when they say Bill Clinton IS being hypocritical.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of is is.
You're not exactly playing your "A" game here, are you?
Do you mean me or leatherjockstrap, Barbantio?
Because, Bill Clinton is not being hypocritical. Perhaps if Leather reads the article he would know better. But since he hates Clinton so much, he doesn't even want to believe things are otherwise.
I meant leather, I responded to him.
Okay, thought so.
I really wish MMFA would get a better. posting system, it gets confusing some times.
I can believe any ex-President would support the pardon power of a president. I dont think anyone is saying he didnt have a RIGHT to do this. That doesnt make it right. He pardoned someone for what HIS administration did in a fit of political pique, that is for carrying HIS water it stinks, but I am not saying he didnt have the right to do it and its ludicrous to claim the punishment was too harsh. It was well within the guidelines for the crime he was guilty of
there are many Clinton's. Which one ?
Wolf, it doesn't matter which Clinton. When you're a regressive and you have no grasp on facts or logic and can't debate an issue on its merits, then you simply start yelling, "Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!"
Hundreds of years from now, Republican regressives will still be whining, "...but Clinton did it."
I couldn't be happier that Libby got commuted...that means in 2008 you'd have a hard time electing a Republican as dog catcher let alone anything else
What I find especially ironic is that all of the right apologists and excuse makers here on this site, and everywhere else are saying that "Clinton did this so it's OK that Bush did it too."
So what they are doing is justifying what Clinton did through the actions of Bush. If they now condone what Bush did with Libby, and hold up Clinton as an example, they are by proxy, condoning what Clinton did as holding it up as an example that "he did it too" so that makes it OK. They are defeating their own argument.
As others have said, if there was to be a debate about the pardons and commutations that Clinton handed out, let's debate them on their own merits and actions, but don't try to equate what Bush did with what Clinton did. They are separate cases that hold no water, and can't be compared to one another at all. Then again, the debate about Clinton's pardons and commutations took place when he left office, oh, more than 6 years ago now. Apparently, even when the Bush administration still screws up, it's still somehow Clinton's fault. When is it ever NOT going to be Clinton's fault? And here I thought the republican party and conservatives in general were all about "personal responsibility". This seems to be the case, as long as someone doesn't screw up, and then it is someone else's fault.
I still find it hard to believe that normal somewhat intelligent people can't see the differences between the Libby case, and any pardons that Clinton handed out at the end of his term, or during his term. Last I knew, or read, Clinton didn't hand out any pardons for anyone within his administration that outed a covert CIA agent.
You're right. And to carry your argument one step further, by justifying Bush's action in this case, the regressives are also saying, "...therefore, it will be perfectly fine with us if future-President Clinton or Obama pardons or commutes the sentence of anyone they want for any reason they want, no matter what crime they committed."
Also, I don't recall Clinton pardoning anyone to keep them from testifying against him. Bush's motivation for commuting (and later pardoning) Libby is the only transparent thing Bush has done during his entire term.
My opinion is that the average citizen just thinks "another rich/powerful guy getting off the hook when they know that ordinary folks get a different justice." In that way, you can compare the pardoning by past presidents. This is only if you want to look at a narrow point.
If you want to see the forest instead of the one tree, look at what was done and why. This the right wing does not want to talk about. Very sad, because we are all in this together.
''If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if that person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of," Bush said at a campaign stop in Chicago in October 2003
What we didn't know when Bush said the above was that what he meant was the lawbreaker will serve zero days in jail and later on pardoned.
Amnesty is an act by which rulers must often pardon the injustices they have committed; eat that one up Conservatives.
From what I understand there are 28 Republican Senators that had plenty to say about law and order when Clinton was accused of perjury. Today those same 28 Republican Senators are deadly silence about the Libby get out of jail free card. Shut Up prevailed when it comes time to put up or shut up.
This is from http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/were-anti-federalists-really-paranoid.html
"George Mason, a distinguished Virginian who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a bill of rights, noted that "the President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own guilt." Luther Martin, a somewhat less distinguished but extremely interesting non-signatory from Maryland (who also raised questions about the collaboration with slavery), also objected to the potential "attempt [of the President] to assume to himself powers not given by the constitution, and establish himself in regal authority; in which attempt a provision is made for him to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons should they be defeated in their attempts to subvert the constitution."
Thank you for mentioning George Mason - one of the greatest and most underappreciated of the Founding Fathers.